Family Court may grant maintenance to major unmarried daughter by exercising jurisdiction under HAM Act in Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

The petitioner (father) challenged an interim order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Family Court, Satna, which awarded ₹2,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite to Respondent No. 2, his major unmarried daughter.

The Family Court had refused maintenance to the Respondent No. 1 (wife) on the prima facie ground that she was not legally wedded.

The petitioner contended that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for a major daughter unless she suffers from a physical or mental abnormality, and that she had allegedly assaulted him.

1. Whether a major unmarried daughter can be granted maintenance by a Family Court in an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by invoking Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAM Act).

2. Whether the mentioning of an incorrect legal provision (Section 125 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 20 of the HAM Act) vitiates the grant of maintenance.

Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which mandates that a Hindu is bound to maintain an unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings.

The Supreme Court precedent of Abhilasha v. Parkash and others (2021), which established that while a Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot grant maintenance to a major daughter, a Family Court exercising jurisdiction under both Cr.P.C. and the HAM Act can do so to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The principle from N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre (2004) and The Patna Municipal Corporation v. M/s Tribro Ad Bureau (2024) that quoting a wrong provision of law does not invalidate an order if the source of power exists.

The Court reasoned that although Section 125 Cr.P.C. strictly limits maintenance for children to minors (unless disabled), the Family Court possesses composite jurisdiction to decide claims under both the Cr.P.C. and Section 20(3) of the HAM Act.

The Judge observed that Respondent No. 2 is an unmarried daughter who pleaded an inability to maintain herself, fulfilling the substantive requirements of Section 20(3) of the HAM Act.

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s technical objection regarding the "wrong provision," noting that procedural technicalities should not thwart justice when the court has the requisite jurisdiction to grant the relief under a different statute.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to clear existing arrears.

It held that a major unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 20(3) of the HAM Act if she cannot maintain herself, regardless of whether she has a disability.

The Court directed the Family Court to take strict action, including potentially striking out the petitioner's defence, if arrears are not cleared.

It further advised the respondents to amend the pending application to include Section 20(3) of the HAM Act to resolve technical objections.